Well, it's time for Governor Chris Christie to wrestle that nasty, voracious public welfare beast to the ground.

With crumbling local and state economies in NJ, we should be seeing cuts to the social safety net by reducing Medicaid reimbursements to providers for maternity and postpartum care – similar to what Pennsylvania is undertaking.

My personal gripe is that anyone receiving public assistance can receive state funded maternity benefits at all. We have a system in which welfare mothers are incentivized to procreate. Woman on welfare play the game knowing that having more children means receiving more benefits – such as housing, food stamps, medical assistance and paid-off utility bills. Common sense dictates that the incentives we give welfare mothers to procreate must be eliminated.

But I would go one step further and suggest that we should dis-incentivize welfare mothers from procreating at all. After all, it is the taxpayer and the working class people of this world who are footing the bill here.

Having children without the means to take care of these hungry mouths at a minimum is “irresponsible.” I could argue, however, that it is predatory because it robs working class families of the resources they need to put food on their own tables, pay housing and utility costs, and provide health insurance for their own families.

If a would-be welfare mother wants to have children, then she can find a husband who can pull his weight economically and provide for his children. Or she can get a job and raise her family as a single mother. In other words, we as a society have the right to expect that she act responsibly - which means supporting one’s children without government help. And if she chooses to procreate and accept public assistance, then the state should deny her the privilege of delivering the child.

Having children that you cannot support is not a birthright. And unfortunately the reality might be that a woman on welfare must choose between accepting public assistance and living her life childless until she can afford to put food on the table and a roof over her children’s heads.

While this might sound cruel to some, it is only an extension of the same thinking espoused by the Clinton administration when it revamped “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),” saying that the administration’s plan was meant to "signal that people should not have children until they are ready to support them."